The distinction between “less” and “fewer” is about countable discrete objects vs uncountable stuff. So “less water” but “fewer ice cubes”.
That distinction doesn’t exist on the opposite side. “More water” or “more ice cubes” both work.
So, more/less is a pair, but a pair that only applies to uncountable things like water, not to countable discrete objects where the dichotomy is more/fewer.
Oh sure it can. My GF has lectured me on this more than once on how nuance and precision is lost in sloppy, lazy language. As we allow the sloppy language in we lose something. Ever see the movie “Idiocracy”? Think of it along those lines (I know language was not the point but it was used to show how dim people had become.)
She does not participate on this board but she reads it on occasion. Maybe I can coax her into writing something explaining it (she would do it so much better than I could).
Maybe your pidgin English tongue cannot be, but the glorious majesty of the French tongue must not be diminished! -A Norman nobleman, probably
Just remember: no matter how beautiful and elegant you think your language is, your dead ancestors can’t understand a word you’re saying because of how much it has “diminished”.
Less vs fewer is one of my peeves, and since the only person whose grammar I feel comfortable correcting is my husband, I instructed him on the proper way and now that he has learned the rule, he goes out of his way to mock me.
“If we buy that, we’ll have less money for groceries!”
“You mean fewer money.”
I brought it on myself.
English isn’t any weaker or stronger (whatever in the world that could possibly mean) than it was 100 years ago.
It’s different, that’s it.
It is not about whether I can speak the same language as someone else. It is about the ability to express yourself with nuance and clarity.
No offense, but the best way to describe that book is “full of shit.” Amusing, yes, but like the other book I mentioned apparently researched without the aid of a dictionary.
Your correct. But I saw the smiley @commasense added.
I remember when smileys were overused here. Yet today they’ve almost disappeared. I would like to see a happy medium. 
Yet defining words that are used frequently by the public are the entire purpose of a dictionary. Deleting non-formal words because of their lack of “acceptability” (acceptable to whom?) went out with Webster’s Third in 1961. There are many good books on how a dictionary operates. A personal favorite among modern ones is Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries by Kory Stamper.
Yeah…we all know that.
That does not mean someone needs to be happy that the language has gotten more sloppy. It’s not an improvement. “Irregardless” becoming common and accepted diminishes the English language. It doesn’t make sense. It loses connection to how words are formed to have meaning. It is just a noise that people understand but lacks any structure. It literally makes no sense if someone thinks about if for a second. But people don’t.
I do not see that as a good trend.
I understand that. But that’s got less than nothing to do with the way language naturally shifts.
Language hasn’t gotten more “sloppy”. There is a lot more casual communication going on, but that really is not the same thing at all.
What good does nuance do when your reader/listener has a different definition of a word than the one you learned when you were a kid?
I think it was on this very board where a linguist explained that the world needs grammar pedants as much as it needs descriptivists. Me, I’m a writer who learned grammar through absorption from literature. My grammatical understanding is not always correct, but usually. I love proper grammar while also recognizing its role in enforcing class and privilege. I also love dirty, messy language. My kid freaked out the other day when I said, “I ain’t got nothin’” (or some other double negative.) I broke his nascent understanding of how language works. I still remember when I was a freshman in college, I was chatting with my roommate, using my dialect, the place where I came from (rural, working class), and my roommate corrected my grammar. I was so irritated. It was absolutely a class-based slight - not intentional on her part, but effective in making my feel othered. Meanwhile I’m thinking Bitch, I could write circles around you.
Yet I cringe internally when I see a grammar error in what should be “proper” writing.
You could say I’m a descriptivist in the streets and a pedant in the sheets, I guess.
And old books or Shakespeare plays or the like are so clear to a modern audience that every passage needs explanation or interpretation.
Will anyone not understand you if you say “regardless?” Will they now only understand “irregardless?” Why not just stick with the original? It is already there. It works. It means something.
More, what would you teach in school to children? Your defense of this seems to suggest you would not be the best English teacher.
The best kind of kinkiness.
What nuance or clarity is lost by saying “irregardless”? Do you get this invested in “flammable” vs “inflammable” or has that bit of weirdness existed long enough that it actually enhances nuance and clarity?
“Noises that people understand” is exactly what words are. And etymology is not definition.
Yeah, but it changes less these days than it used to in the past. Due to that, there were fewer good reasons for being a language pedant in the past. At least for the reason of the language changing around them, since the English they spoke hadn’t been around in largely the same form for a few hundred years in their time the way our present day English has been.
Did I get that right? 
I know what the guidelines say. . . but do we really need a distinction between ‘less’ and ‘fewer?’ Does it really gain us anything? Similar to ‘further/farther,’ another battle that has been lost, as I rarely hear the word ‘farther’ as it technically ‘should’ be used. But maybe that’s just regional confirmation bias. Who/Whom is no great loss, although I still follow the rules. That’s another thing we don’t really ‘need,’ objective case pronouns, other than it sounds odd for those of us (ha!, there’s one!) that expect them (ha!, another one!) to be used in those contexts.